FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF ROMANOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
(Applications nos. 5159/21 and 2 others –
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24 February 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Romanov and Others v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lətif Hüseynov, President,
Lado Chanturia,
Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 February 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. In application no. 22453/21 the applicant also raised other complaints under the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 AND ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION6. The applicants complained principally that the length of the criminal proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
Article 13
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
7. After examining all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the complaints raised by the applicant in application no. 12761/21 concerning the length of another set of the criminal proceedings which had been pending between 12 March 2009 and 29 October 2014 must be dismissed as the applicant failed to comply with the six-month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
8. As regards the other complaints raised under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).
9. In the leading case of Nechay v. Ukraine, no. 15360/10, 1 July 2021 the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
10. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings, as indicated in the appended table, was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
11. The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy in respect of these complaints.
12. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and of Article 13 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW13. In application no. 22453/21 the applicant also raised complaints under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention in line with the relevant well‑established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, §§ 90-97, 7 December 2006 and Nikiforenko v. Ukraine, no. 14613/03, § 59, 18 February 2010.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION14. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
15. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Bevz v. Ukraine, no. 7307/05, § 52, 18 June 2009), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
16. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the complaints raised by the applicant in application no. 12761/21, concerning the proceedings between 12 March 2009 and 29 October 2014, inadmissible;Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings, as described in the appended table, the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and the other complaints under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible;Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings, as described in the appended table, and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention in respect of the applicant in application no. 22453/21;Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 February 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Lətif Hüseynov
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention
(excessive length of criminal proceedings and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
5159/21
09/01/2021
Yuriy Valeriyovych ROMANOV
1972
Sobyna Pavlo Mykolayovych
Okhtyrka
08/05/2014
pending
More than 7 years and 8 months and 5 days
1 level of jurisdiction
3,000
12761/21
01/03/2021
Igor Semenovych LOBODIN
1961
28/09/2011
04/12/2020
9 years and 2 months and 7 days
1 level of jurisdiction
3,600
22453/21
17/04/2021
Olena Oleksiyivna DOVGOPOLA
1976
14/02/2006
pending
More than 15 years and 11 months
2 levels of jurisdiction
Prot. 4 Art. 2 (1) - excessive length of obligation not to abscond
- the applicant was under obligation not to abscond from 17 February 2006 to 23 December 2020, for more than 14 years and
10 months.
8,600
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.